Inglourious Basterds reviewed

I’m sorry to report that Inglourious Basterds, the long awaited World War II film from writer-director Quentin Tarantino is something of a disappointment. While there are many elements in the film that are quite superb, the overall product seems to be missing that most vital of qualities: it’s just not entertaining.


Existing as a something of a cross between a WWII espionage adventure and a revenge-orientated spaghetti western, Inglourious Basterds centres on two groups intent on assassinating the Nazi leadership when they attend a film premiere in Paris in 1944. The first group is formed out of an uneasy international collaboration between a British officer (Michael Fassbender), a German actress turned double-agent (Diane Kruger) and a bloodthirsty squad of Jewish-American soldiers under the command of Lieutenant “Apache” Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) – who have been slaughtering and scalping German soldiers across France. The second group, or, rather, person, is young Jewish Frenchwoman Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent) who seeks revenge after her family is murdered by cunning SS agent Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), also known as “The Jew Hunter.”

Being a Tarantino film, the groups’ plans typically don’t work out as intended, and bodies and blood are frequently strewn across the screen. And make no mistake about it – Inglourious Basterds is a very violent film. In fact, I would add that I found the violence part of the film’s problem.

For one thing, the extreme brutality of the Basterds, who would otherwise be the film’s heroes, makes them the most unlikeable and cartoonish characters next to the Nazi leadership. Arguably the only figures in the extensive cast who elicit any kind of audience sympathy are the chief female characters, Shosanna, and, to a lesser degree double agent Bridget von Hammersmark, who is subject to interrogation by both the Axis and Allies.


For another thing, the violence in Inglourious Basterds frequently kills off the more intriguing characters before they can be explored more fully. This is disappointing in a film where character development is nearly nonexistent as it is.

This said, while characters may not be developed, the performances of the actors playing them are excellent to outstanding across the board. The acting is in fact one of the main selling points of Inglourious Basterds. Christopher Waltz is the obvious choice for critical acclaim, and a likely Best Supporting Actor Oscar, given his captivating performance as the ultra-intelligent Landa, whose charm and affability hide just how deadly an opponent he is. Michael Fassbender also impresses as smooth British lieutenant Archie Hicox, and Mélanie Laurent does a fine job as Shosanna, the emotional heart of the film.


There’s a great deal of talking in Tarantino’s films and Inglourious Basterds is no exception, so if you have an aversion to verbal diarrhoea on the big screen you have been warned. The 2 and a half hour film consists almost entirely of scenes in which incredibly long, apparently banal conversations meander along, with one participant growing increasing tense until the discussion suddenly veers to the point – and culminates with a swift, shocking act of violence. These types of scenes were common in Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill Volume 2. In Inglourious Basterds they dominate to the point of overuse, with some far more impactful than others. Highlights of the film include its opening interrogation scene and, later, a covert meeting in a basement bar.

With so much potential and several strong points in its favour, it’s a pity then that Inglourious Basterds ultimately isn’t enjoyable. I’m still struggling to place my finger on exactly why I found the film a disappointment, but I did. With so many unlikeable characters and so much offputting brutality Inglorious Basterds just isn’t fun, funny or engaging. Give me the hyperstylised and hypercool Kill Bill Volume 1 any day.